IN THE MIDDLE 1 IN THE MIDDLE: A Comparison of the Limitations and Opportunities of an Individualist Ministerial Stance and a Relational Ministerial Stance BY ELAINE BETH PERESLUHA
IN THE MIDDLE 2 In the Middle: A Comparison of the Limitations and Opportunities of an Individualist Ministerial Stance and a Relational Ministerial Stance PROEFSCHRIFT ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit van Tilburg, op gezag van de rector magnificus, prof. dr. Ph. Eijlander, in het openbaar te verdedigen ten overstaan van een door het college voor promoties aangewezen commissie in de Ruth First zaal van de Universiteit op dinsdag 09 februari 2010 om 10.15 uur door Elaine Beth Peresluha Geboren op 13 maart 1952 te Manchester, Connecticut, USA
IN THE MIDDLE 3 Promotores: Prof. Dr. S. McNamee Prof. Dr. J.B. Rijsman
IN THE MIDDLE 4 Abstract This dissertation explores the limitations and opportunities of applying a social constructionist perspective to congregational ministry, using practices of appreciative inquiry and relational responsibility. Ministers often stand in the middle between the Academy and their congregations, drawing on their theological studies to impart wisdom as experts in a top-down fashion, aiming to inspire congregational life. An interdisciplinary dialogue between a social constructionist professional ministry and theologians creates ministerial leadership alternatives. Specifically, these alternatives take the form of dialogic theology constructed within the relationships between minister and congregation. Drawing on the relational understandings of social constructionist, as well as the author s own experience, this dissertation explores the implications of understanding and practicing ministry from a relational stance, thereby expanding ministry beyond traditional individualistic, subject-object leadership choices.
IN THE MIDDLE 5 Samenvatting Deze dissertatie gaat na wat de grenzen en mogelijkheden zijn van het toepassen van een Sociaal Constructionistisch perspectief op een congregationele parochie door middel van Appreciative Inquiry (AI) en Relational Responsibility (RR). Predikanten staan vaak in het midden tussen de Academie en hun congregaties, gebruik makend van hun theologische vorming om top down wijsheden uit te strooien als experts met de bedoeling het leven in de congregatie te inspireren. Echter, een indisciplinaire dialoog tussen de Sociaal Constructionistische professionele predikant en theologen schept ruimte voor een alternatieve vorm van leiderschap voor predikanten, namelijk via een dialogische theologie die tot stand komt in de relatie tussen predikant en de congregatie. Steunend op de relationele visie in het Sociaal Constructionisme, alsook op de eigen ervaring van de auteur zelf, onderzoekt deze dissertatie de implicaties van het begrijpen en toepassen van het predikantschap vanuit een relationele houding, daarmee het predikantschap verder brengend, d.w.z. verder dan de traditionele individualistische en op subject-object gebaseerde keuzes van leiderschap.
IN THE MIDDLE 6 Dedication In The Middle is dedicated to all those who minister with tireless faith, committed service and devotion. Our work makes a difference, as do our relationships with each other and the members of our communities. I thank you all for your presence, your big hearts, wise minds and your belief in a world transformed by love.
IN THE MIDDLE 7 Acknowledgements Thank you to all the members of my tribe. Your care is responsible for my completion of In the Middle. Sheila McNamee, your endless patience, prodding, and faith in my ability to learn assured my success. Paul Rasor, you kept me going whenever I was ready to quit. Thank you for your friendship, feedback and confidence. Thank you Marilee Crocker for years of friendship and for answering the phone with a smile in your voice. You professionally stepped up to assure we met the deadline, and discovered my meaningful content disguised as typos. Thank you to the Rev. Konnie Wells, the Rev. Elaine Hewes, and the Rev. Grace Bartlett for the inspiration to develop this project and to participate in the Boston University grant for Urban Pastoral Excellence. Without your collegial presence and friendship, I would never have moved through burnout into a sustainable shared ministry. Dr. Bryan Stone and Dr. Claire Wolfteich, thank you for designing the SUPE project and applying for the Lilly Endowment grant. You taught the world new appreciation for the hearts and labors of urban pastors. Betsy Weiss, Mary Lou MacLean, Joanne Meyer and Jen Tassannee, you listened attentively to all my personal and professional whining as I learned to stay in the middle, until I was not. Thank you for your love and care. Jack and Sam, you are blessed companions whose unconditional love offered endless distractions and playful creativity. Finally, this dissertation would not have been possible without the hard work, trust, appreciation and commitment of the members of the UU Society of Bangor and the UU Fellowship of Wilmington. You are amazing people whose willingness to be uncertain and risk taught me to minister with you and inspired us all to trust in and practice appreciation. Cate, Robin, and Abbie you are my beloveds. You and Tj you have taught me how to love. Thank you all.
IN THE MIDDLE 8 Table of Contents Abstract. 4 Samenvatting. 5 Dedication.. 6 Acknowledgements. 7 Preface.. 10 Overview.. 18 Chapter 1: A Monological Introduction to Language and Meaning Constructed Through Dialogical Communication 31 Chapter 2: Learning What Being Relational Really Entails 50 Chapter 3: Discovering the Limitations and Opportunities of Minster as Expert 73 Chapter 4: Integrating the Diverse Voices and Choices for Leadership.. 107 Chapter 5: A God In The Middle 151 Conclusion.. 184 References. 196 Tables Table 1: UU Society of Bangor Timeline.... 200 Table 2: Comparing Leadership Choices of Behavior and Language 201 Table 3: UUSB Appreciative Inquiry Action Plans... 205 Table 4: Examples of Choices in Leadership Voice... 209 Appendices A: Spirit of life Reflection Waning Moon, Midsummer 96... 215 B: Questions for Appreciative Inquiry Interviews... 218
IN THE MIDDLE 9 C: Visionary Design Statements.... 219 D: Ministerial Column in UUSB Newsletter, June 2003...... 221 E: Ministerial Column for UUSB Newsletter, September 2004.... 223 F: Boston University Supporting Urban Pastoral Excellence Sabbatical Plan 225 G: Elaine s Agenda for UUSB Council Retreat.... 231 H: Council Commitment..... 234 I: Unitarian Universalist Society of Bangor Agenda for Workshop for Church Leaders, March 5, 2005..... 235 J: UUSB Appreciative Inquiry Summit October 2003 Questions for Interviews.. 240 K: UUSB Ministerial Exit Interview...... 241 L: UUSB Resignation Letter May 2006.... 253 M: Project Supervision September 20, 2005.... 254 N: UUFW First Worship Service September 2007.... 256 O: Introduction to Appreciative Inquiry.... 262 P: Follow-up Letter to the UUFW Board of Trustees President... 263 Q: Second UUFW Worship Service September 2007... 264 R: Participant Response to Appreciative Inquiry Summit.. 271 S: Collated Responses from Members of the Transition Team. 277 T: Transition Team Annual Report 2009. 280 U: LEAP Retreat Report of Leadership/Ministry Project Group. 281 V: UUFW Board of Trustees Report..... 284 W: UUA: Interim Progress Appraisal...... 286
IN THE MIDDLE 10 A Comparison of the Limitations and Opportunities of an Individualist Ministerial Stance and a Relational Ministerial Stance Preface In the Middle looks at how we might increase our awareness of the choices available to us, both professionally and personally, and the limitations and opportunities those choices offer. Our roles, our language, and our viewpoints are among the tools we can use to engage in a creative, intentional, and relational process or not. In the Middle uses a monologic medium, this dissertation, to discuss the opportunities and limitations of engaging in dialogic language practices while developing an appreciative leadership style for professional ministry. This dissertation also communicates my personal developmental experience of what might be considered an abstract theoretical concept. It is ironic that my personal and professional location somewhere in the middle between modern and postmodern, monologic and dialogic communication necessitates the use of written language to affirm my participation in a dialogue that explores the residence of meaning in relational language practices. I have chosen to use words attached to a page to communicate the opportunities and limitations of a monologic language practice and explore the possibilities that lie beyond. To fully appreciate the significance of such an investigation and the personal process it initiated, I begin with this preface, which fully appreciates the possibilities of happiness and inner peace. Happiness and inner peace know nothing of fear or scarcity. Happiness and inner peace depend on our relationship to beauty, to gratitude, to love and to service for something greater than the self (author unknown). I don t remember where I first read those words, so I have no author to footnote. I have held onto their message for years, using them as a litmus paper of sorts for my own spiritual development. The quest for happiness and inner peace has directed most of
IN THE MIDDLE 11 my life s comings and goings. Through the years, the hues of happiness and inner peace have shifted, intensifying or fading, reflecting back to me the progress of my maturing spirit. I do yoga. I read. Mindfulness comes and goes. I am sometimes present, sometimes not so present, always trying to be, not merely do. Up and down, approaching, dancing, not quite arriving at happiness or inner peace, yet touching it. I have never consistently practiced nor claimed as my spiritual practice any one of these interests and pursuits. At the same time, there has been an element of consistency in them all, some motivation spinning a thread that holds them together. I know I have been practicing something, because I have moved very close to inner peace and happiness. I may not know them, but I can see them from here. More and more often these days, I feel an ease where before there had been dis-ease. More and more frequently I hear myself say, I am happy, and I truly feel the happiness that has been unavailable to me most of my life. I now have enough experience of both inner peace and happiness to have my own true north, a compass setting of sorts that tells me I am getting closer to that which I want to hold onto or move toward. Happiness and inner peace are words, concepts that we all may claim to understand; yet they represent something unique within each person. Inner peace and happiness can be appreciated as constructs, not conclusions, destinations for arrival, but stars by which we can navigate, discovering and understanding together what comes next. The word construct is one of several terms that are central to this dissertation. It will be defined and explored in depth in the body of the work. Other key terms used deliberately in the preface that will be defined in the dissertation include: expert, transformational dialogue, social construction, and positivism. The U.S. and global economies are in the midst of major change. Somewhere in the middle of what the world has known and accepted as dependable, and whatever comes next, lies
IN THE MIDDLE 12 possibility. In the fall of 2008, as economic drama was unfolding, I watched. I listened. I waited with the experts, hoping to be on the other side of this most uncomfortable middle. After the United States Dow Jones Industrial Average first fell below 9000, I noticed more than the usual amount of dissonance between my mind, happiness and inner peace. I was feeling a bit uneasy. Driving to work, I found myself wondering about my own financial security. Where was my family financially? What about retirement, building our dream home, health insurance, cancer? I was sliding down a familiar slippery slope of what-ifs, attachments, and projections. Then, somewhere amid my fear-based projections of global financial Armageddon, I noticed I was breathing. This was quite by accident. I can claim no deliberate choice for that action. I did not think to myself, Breathe! Now! It just happened, and I noticed. I felt the deliciousness of one simple breath, a breath that initiated a whole chain of appreciative responses. I appreciated being alive. I appreciated the confusion that can surround money. I appreciated my illusions of financial planning. I appreciated having an able body, a bright mind, loving relationships. With one simple breath, I tumbled right out of my monkey mind of fear and uncertainty into joy. As I did so, I marveled at the diamond cut depths of awareness I had unleashed so simply. I laughed right out loud, filling the cab of my pick-up truck with chortles. In that moment, I realized that appreciation had become my spiritual practice. I saw that I experienced reality as something that grows out of my relationship with other people, with the world, and with the economy; this was in contrast to the reality I previously had constructed individually, through my mind and senses. I felt a sense of peace, a sense that perhaps the time had arrived for a transformative dialogue. Maybe, just maybe, a world-wide dialogue, inclusive of the many voices in a global economy, could now be opened and appreciated.
IN THE MIDDLE 13 In ministry, the practice of appreciation together with relational choices and selfreflection has the potential to transform the experience of ministry from one that consists of a long list of lonely, energy-draining demands, expectations, achievements, and disappointments, into a relational process that is rewarding, renewing and energizing for minister and congregation alike. As a minister, when I practice appreciation from a relational viewpoint, more choices become available to me. Practicing appreciation also gives me language for those moments in which I feel an urgent need to move out of the middle into clarity; these internal I- based needs become an invitation into self-reflective moments where I can pause, then look for the we. Appreciative awareness of those moments asks ministers and congregations to notice. Can we engage in a dialogue about our current predicaments, relationship, needs, and understandings? When we do, when all feel understood, included, and appreciated, new possibilities and a new sense of direction can emerge. We appreciate that there are no expectations, no shoulds, only a revealing relational acceptance of who or what is, as together we navigate our very human middles. This is the dialogue, an opening in shared ministry, that I hope to cultivate. Practicing appreciation, like practicing a cello or yoga, is all about not quite getting it. We practice whatever it is we want to master, incorporating the feelings of frustration and ineptness that inspire more practice. We practice, acquiring more tools, more choice, more understanding of where it is we want to go as we find our own true north, which then may be challenged or changed when we discover the other, or others, whom we choose to join. It is perhaps the appreciation of this not quite getting it that to me is the greatest gift of social construction. This concept of a constructed, relational being is far from the self-contained bodily I that I feel so attached to and secure in. The more the concept of social construction becomes
IN THE MIDDLE 14 integrated into my language practice and my appreciative practice, the easier it is to appreciate the other, free from my ownership of truth or rightness. When I practice appreciation I have to choose, moment to moment, where to place my attention, how to be attentive to and appreciate what and who surrounds me. I have learned the gifts of celebrating the other (Sampson, 2008). From each action, in each self-reflective moment, my choice of appreciation leads me closer to a different understanding of choice, one that includes the other, that requires relationship. I alone do not choose how I want to engage with each of my moments. The choices available to us emerge out of the awareness of and acknowledgement of whomever or whatever we are in relationship with. My lifelong tool chest of behaviors, reactions, responses and pursuits contains within it judgments, fear, anger, uncertainty, will, aggression, passivity, timidity, forgiveness and gratitude, among others and now, appreciation. I have identities: mother, sister, minister, stranger, friend, colleague. Add these identities together with my relationships with others and with all the behaviors available to each identity, and you have many viewpoints from which we may discover many choices. Intention involves moments of choice, moments when we can acknowledge our motivations, decide on a direction, and be relational or not. When we choose an inquisitive appreciation of a thoughtful or emotional connection, we step into relational intention. Before we decide upon a direction, there is an I that assumes either an individual identity with a particular viewpoint or a we with a different, relational viewpoint. The differences between the viewpoints from which we choose, the presence or not of an object, I the observer, or we, the relationship, are what will be explored by this dissertation. Practicing appreciation has helped me to understand the differences between being an I an individual and being a we who
IN THE MIDDLE 15 sustain a relationship. Appreciation also has brought me face to face with the me who likes being the expert, likes being the observer of an object distinct from me, as well as with the me who likes being part of a we, part of a relationship where we discover something new that the expert or observer I would have missed or tried to direct. I saw that the I and the we behaved differently, each opening different professional and personal directions, choices and discoveries. The inquiry into and experiences of the limitations and the opportunities of these different voices makes up In the Middle. The I and the we voices will reveal and share their differences and how each was transformed by new understandings and deeper appreciation. At the core of this dissertation is the invitation for a dialogue, which engages the perspectives of both an individualist and relational stance, with appreciation for both voices. The I is not the correct voice over the we voice. The relational viewpoint does not supercede the individualist viewpoint. A comparison of gratitude and appreciation helps to illustrate the opportunities, the both/and of the I and the we viewpoints. I can choose voice, gratitude, or appreciation. They differ. Appreciation is relational. I am in relationship with whatever it is that I am appreciating. We sit together and are patient, curious, expecting nothing more. Gratitude comes from the I context. I, the observer, view the object, the experience, believing or practicing the belief that good will come of whatever I am grateful for, if not today, then someday. Gratitude contains the potential for judgment, which I associate with a positivist viewpoint. It connotes a this is good or that is bad suggestion, which I, the individual, construct subjectively. When gratitude is beyond my emotional or cognitive reach, I take a 12-step approach, acting as if I were grateful. In this, my I is acting alone, well-intentioned perhaps, but still alone, observing the subject, deciding, anticipating and/or moving toward an outcome. There is no we involved.
IN THE MIDDLE 16 The appreciative I understands a we. Whether it is a person, place, event, or thought, the we viewpoint appreciates that there is an other that is equal and present in this unfolding. Neither is attached to what comes next. Each participates in the moment. Appreciation requires no action, analysis, understanding, or qualification other than what is. I do not have to know or decide if this or that is good or bad. I just need to appreciate. It simply is. Once I open up to appreciation, I step into relationship, and the we begins. There is safety there, as all the parts acknowledge, Hmmm. This is challenging. This is hot, cold, painful, scary, sweet, or. Just fill in the blank with a word, and this word becomes the place to be together until something new emerges. From my initial choice of appreciation, I engage with whatever or whomever I am in relationship with, and we discover together where to go or what needs to come next. Engaging with appreciation is different than engaging without it. Taking time to choose appreciation creates a pause, a comma between an emotional and a mindful connection. It creates a neutral space of curiosity where I may recognize and then let go of any need I have to be offensive or defensive, right or wrong, leader or follower. Appreciation offers me an alternative to all those viewpoints that I once believed were my only options. How freeing it feels to have an option that is In the Middle, between right and wrong, between resisting and complying. I can maintain an intentional self reflective distance as an observer or choose to be connected in relationship; they are two different viewpoints of the same experience, each offering unique pathways to different outcomes. We can all learn to navigate the distances between both viewpoints. Appreciation offers me an alternative to, a remedy for, all those wooden nickels in my woulda, shoulda, coulda jar, a balm for the dis-ease of conflict, disagreement, and
IN THE MIDDLE 17 disappointment. It brings me into a relational space where I am free of the I that is present in any war-and-peace-size conflicts or carnivore-versus-vegan-size conflicts. Appreciation is a relational tool available to me in the middle between conflict and resolution, doubt and discovery, fear and trust. Like a baker s hands, appreciation kneads together separate desires to move, resist, resolve, or aggress into a relationship. Practicing appreciation kneads the ingredients of relational interactions, shaping the too-wet, too-dry, too-soft or too-lumpy into an even elasticity, a pliable uniformity that can take new shape and rise to perfection. Much as Marie Rainier Rilke advised in Letters to a Young Poet (1934) appreciation encourages relationships to remain in the middle, in the questions and uncertainty until a direction or new understanding shifts the participants. All my uncertainty, questions and not knowing are ingredients in the bowl, in the relationships. I do not leave me out of the mix. I bring me in as one portion of the whole. When baking bread, the baker knows when the risen dough is ready to be removed from the bowl, punched down and kneaded for a second rising. She knows when the loaf is ready for baking. We are each rising. We are in process, somewhere In the Middle between the modern and the post modern, the individualist and the relational viewpoints, practicing.
IN THE MIDDLE 18 Overview We touch this strength, our power, who we are in the world, when we are most fully in touch with one another and with the world. There is no doubt in my mind that in so doing we are participants in ongoing incarnation- bringing God to life in the world. For God is nothing more than the eternally creative source of our relational power- our common strength; a God who's movement is to empower, bringing us into our own together; a God whose name in history is love. (Heyward, 1984) Unitarian Universalism is a religious denomination constructed from two discrete liberal Protestant denominations. Rooted in the Enlightenment, that period in Western history when human reason came to be understood as paramount, Unitarianism is a faith tradition that historically has valued reason as a source of human understanding. It was during the Enlightenment that the concept of individualism took hold in human understanding and religious thought; this new perspective celebrated the mind of the individual and the reality of the individual as being one and the same. Historically, Unitarians have championed the rights of individuals to a free and responsible search for truth and meaning. The individualistic viewpoint characteristic of the Enlightenment will be explored in more depth in Chapters 1 and 2, particularly as a distinction between modern and postmodern, positivist and relational perspectives. In contrast to Unitarianism, Universalism emerged more from the heart then the head. Believing in the concept of eternal salvation for all souls, Unitarians grounded their spiritual beliefs in the benevolent presence of a loving God. Their communities were relationally structured in the physical locations they inhabited. Universalists, for the most part, were farmers in rural localities who believed that each individual had a direct relationship with the divine.
IN THE MIDDLE 19 Significantly, they also experienced the divine through their relationships with each other in community. A Unitarian Universalist (UU) denominational identity grew out of years of conversation exploring what the two separate denominations held and appreciated in common, what each valued differently and what they would need to hold onto or let go of when they merged. The years following the 1961 merger of Unitarianism and Universalism revealed both the individualist and relational components that make up Unitarian Universalism. Unitarian Universalism is in the middle of these two understandings, appreciating and building faith from both a relationally oriented understanding of faith and an individually based appreciation of reason and intellect as a source of meaning. This is significant. There is an opportunity for creativity that takes shape in any middle, the middles between people, and the middles between moments in time. This opportunity is enlarged with every particle of attention that is focused on the relationship and every moment of time contributed by those present in those relationships. Each opportunity is uniquely constructed from the multitude of beliefs, languages, personal qualities, and histories contributing to the relationships. The relationships bring forward all that is behind them as they offer their contribution to what can happen next. As a Unitarian Universalist minister, I bring a uniquely constructed measure of ideas, behaviors, and ingredients to the moments and relationships I participate in, shifting, shaping, and affecting whatever new meaning will be discovered. Unitarian Universalism is structurally organized as a relational faith. UUs come together in individual congregations, which covenant with each other to be in association. That association is constructed out of the principles and purposes defined, communicated, and shared
IN THE MIDDLE 20 as a covenant among congregations. We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote the following principles, quoted here from Singing the Living Tradition (Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, 1993, preface). The inherent worth and dignity of every person; Justice, equity and compassion in human relations; Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations; A free and responsible search for truth and meaning; The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large; The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all; Respect for the interdependent web of being of which we are a part. Both reason and relationship add to the ongoing renewal of this covenant, as U.U seek to sustain an inclusive, relational relevance to our faith. There is no point of completion in the process, but rather ongoing conversation and relationship about what is important and what might come next. It was my experience of appreciation for both individual reason and the relational aspects of social construction in Unitarian Universalist UU communities that inspired me to explore the promise and potential of Unitarian Universalism for encouraging life-enhancing conversations. Could Unitarian Universalists open relational discovery and opportunity within religious institutions? Does our historic relationship with both reason and relationships offer some dialogic experience that could engage those who believe differently to participate in new relationships and conversations? In The Middle explores ministry as a leadership role. My personal history, my faith
IN THE MIDDLE 21 tradition, the history of thought, and the roots of Protestant faith uniquely positioned me In The Middle. By re-imaging my understanding of words to see them as the building blocks that construct language, I began to comprehend the difference between a relational and an individualist viewpoint. Words are not what constructs language, but are more a product of language practices. Once I was able to make this tiny shift in my understanding of words, seeing them as being sourced in language, I began to appreciate language as the expression of relationships and their stories. I was then able to appreciate more fully language practices as relational, and as a source of meaning. In shifting my association with words to an appreciation of language, I placed myself on a continuum, moving from the individualistic use of words, which emerged from a Cartesian viewpoint, to a new relational comprehension constructed from language practices. This dissertation explores where and how the individualistic understanding of reason can intersect with the relational understanding of covenant to invite interfaith dialogue. My exploration and experience of dialogue as that place in the middle between reason and relationships has transformed my ministry. Could transformative dialogues also encourage UUs to merge their commitment to the rights of the individual with an equal appreciation of relationships as a source of human and institutional growth and perhaps in doing so reshape their understanding of the rights of the individual? Could such dialogues open new interfaith conversations about collaboration and connections across theological and ideological differences? Rev. Dr. Carter Heyward, liberal theologian and retired Professor of Theology at the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, MA, wrote: We touch this strength, our power, who we are in the world, when we are most fully in touch with one another and with the world. That is the eternally creative source of our
IN THE MIDDLE 22 relational power our common strength introducing a God, whose name in history is love. (1989, p. 11) The implications of intentionally choosing a relational stance in which to ground my ministerial roles in my work with communal and individual spiritual maturation is the focus of In The Middle. Can a relational orientation offer alternative and generative ways of engaging human resources for social transformation? In The Middle is an expression of my appreciation for our human middle those places in between knowing and not knowing. It is my narrative assessment of my movement through a particular middle as a Unitarian Universalist minister in between a traditional settled ministry and a new understanding of what ministry can be. My middle brought me into relationship with new language and viewpoints, such as social construction, relational responsibility, and appreciative inquiry. The understandings these concepts reflect and the direction their applications took me has unfolded as my middling unfolded. At the outset of my journey into the middle, I held an individualist viewpoint of myself as a minister wanting to complete a PhD. Attempting to perform as an individual in a ministry, while learning about social construction and appreciative inquiry, I moved into the middle between an individualist understanding of intention and cognition and an alternative viewpoint offered by social constructionists. I began to choose more relational practices. I was inspired to revisit the relational context of Heyward s theology, Martin Buber and Henry Wieman s creative interchange. Their explorations invited me into the relationship between spirituality and social construction in my own middling process. I began entering into relationships by asking more questions, offering fewer answers and having more appreciation and patience for the process of discovery.
IN THE MIDDLE 23 From a place In The Middle between the minister as expert; the modernist who observes, concludes, identifies, and directs, and the appreciative minister who is in relationship and dialogue with a congregation I experienced a re-orientation of my role as a professional minister. I came to understand and appreciate the relationships in religious communities and among communities differently. In The Middle mines the potential riches for faith communities when they balance their appreciation of relationships within the community with their affirmation of the freedoms and rights of individuals. This balance can expand the choices for structuring and administering religious institutions. What new possibilities could be discovered if leadership in communities of faith were practiced in strengthening relationships, appreciating differences and in keeping dialogues open? New collaborations and shared resources could be initiated. The addition of a relational view to the choices available to those in leadership positions is a subtle but important distinction for religious institutions, one that relieves the pressure for ministers to know the answers and softens the polarities of right and wrong, good and evil. The Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations covenants to affirm and promote respect for the inherent dignity and worth of every individual. There s the rub, a dissonance that UUs experience strongly and which may also be relevant for other denominations. We, the member congregations, covenant together (i.e., in relationship to one another) to affirm and promote certain agreed-upon principles and purposes, the first and foremost of which recognizes and promotes the worth and dignity of the individual. At the same time that we covenant together, UU congregations exercise what is called congregational polity, which gives us the right to act as individual communities, affirming and upholding the rights of individuals. So within each community, as well as in our covenanted association, we have both a
IN THE MIDDLE 24 relational viewpoint and an individual viewpoint; these sometimes compete with or override one anther, instead of supporting and informing one another. The different viewpoints and identities created by the covenantal relationship among UU congregations, the training and expectations of UU ministers as experts, and the dominance of the UU principle affirming the dignity and worth of every individuals offers UUs a context for rich conversation about balancing choices and best practices. Social constructionists teach that all that is real and good emerges within our relationships and communities. Thus, values and beliefs are born out of relationships McNamee, 1998). Establishing an intersection between spirituality and social construction creates a context for UU communities to reexamine possible imbalances created by focusing exclusively on individual freedom and the power of reason while neglecting more relational choices. Allowing dominance of the first UU principle, respecting the dignity and worth of every individual, can leave ministers and congregations feeling ill-equipped to define or develop expectations or boundaries for acceptable behavior. Without a relational viewpoint or context to shape or balance it, our first principle becomes a defining principle one that does not necessarily invite a spiritual practice that might expand the principle s relevance. Individualism without an alternative viewpoint, can limit the resources available to ministers and members of the community when divisive conflict erupts. Without a relational understanding of expectations for how members behave, engage with one another, or hold and appreciate differences, there is no measure of accountability other than the right of the individual. As a result, any person who asserts power over another can be the one who defines the outcome of engagements, minimizing the chance of there being a transformative, relational moment that reveals new opportunities. Power and choice can go, by default, to the person who is most aggressive or manipulative or
IN THE MIDDLE 25 who may have a personal rather than communal agenda. Choosing to equally affirm the inherent dignity and worth of relationships as well as individual rights offers an additional tool for constructing an effective response to institutional development. Might choosing to affirm the relationships in a community as well as the individuals in a community increase the potential for spiritual and institutional maturation? In The Middle addresses Unitarian Universalism s historic grounding in individual freedom, an understanding of self and the power of reason, and examines the implications for leadership when a more relational style is adopted. Appreciating historic UU roots helped me to see and open to an opportunity for something new. What would a relational viewpoint of history, theology, congregational identity, community purpose, and values, rather than an individualistic viewpoint, look like? How might members and ministers of faith communities increase their choices for community conversation about policies and procedures and the efficacy of its ministry? Sourcing responses and approaches to managing institutions solely in the context of individual freedom and reason without a relational context for the whole can limit the potential utilization of resources within the community. Without relational appreciation, individual fears can exert a disproportionate influence on the decision-making process. Relational responsibility, a way of holding one another in relationship, sustaining dialogue while managing differences, creates transformative dialogues. The transformative dialogue is a conversation that appreciates fears and anxiety and incorporates them in a way that allows new life-changing possibilities and understandings to emerge. Understanding, appreciating and integrating the powerful resistance or motivation that individuals may experience are essential to making the most out of being in the middle. Individual responses to community responsibilities and tasks acquire new potential
IN THE MIDDLE 26 when viewed from a relational perspective. Each facet of administration brings added value to the relationships, minimizing the potential for omissions due to judgments or fear of disagreement and conflict. Awareness of and appreciation for all the communal and individual responses to leadership and management are essential to supporting the process of being in the middle and mining its full potential. An appreciation for relationships among individuals, as well as for their individual talents, opinions, strengths and weaknesses, offers more opportunities for staying in the middle until that very middle reveals what comes next. Locating and prioritizing the relational aspects of community creates tools for managing the urge to avoid conflict, stay attached to the past, or push prematurely into the future, while encouraging appreciation for the richness of being in the middle and the transformative opportunity available there. The intention of In The Middle is to compare and contrast the limitations and opportunities of an individualist stance and a relational stance. From within those two stances, I explore spirituality and community, creatively and appreciatively. I want to introduce appreciation as one tool in a faith community s toolbox for staying patiently in the middle of conflict, growth, emerging need, or change. Appreciation can help institutions have patience with and curiosity about the feelings of frustration, sense of stagnation and urgency to push for movement that arise in the middle. There may be transitional moments that are so uncomfortable that a community will force an early resolution or exit, in doing so moving its members and the institution out of the middle to a new place that is not necessarily the best place. Appreciating being in the middle allows time, patience, and relational discovery to open new opportunities for enriching and growing from the experience so that moving on becomes transformative. The
IN THE MIDDLE 27 more actively participants appreciate being in their middle, in relationship to one another and to their middle, the more dynamic their dialogues and transformations can be. I believe that how our middles are sourced, matters. Whether we see our lives as intersecting with a community as a group of individuals or that community as multiple relationships, or as a combination of both, influences the practices and wellbeing of the community. A community s understanding of and fulfillment of its mission and vision, and its spiritual maturation is different if its meaning is individually or relationally understood. A very brief encounter with Appreciative Inquiry as a tool for organizational development inspired me to apply appreciative inquiry (Whitney & Trosten-Bloom, 2003) and relational responsibility (McNamee & Gergen, 1999) in a select setting, as the minister of a particular Unitarian Universalist congregation. Viewing change within a relational context motivated me to ask if the unique combination of church, faith, and change created an opportunity to develop spiritual maturation through appreciating change. My understanding of change shifted in the process, leading me to an appreciation of the middles that occur after a need, loss or awareness is acknowledged and before a change takes place. Social construction s communal construction of the real and the good (Gergen, 1999) suggests that what we know and experience are constructed within relationships. Nothing that I am came to me in isolation. From conception, this Elaine Beth Peresluha entity, this I has been more than a body encased in skin, thinking and perceiving. I was and am an ongoing construction of history and relationships, between my parents, within a family, within a community, within a human story. I arrive at this moment in time with all the relationships that preceded this moment, speaking, learning acting choosing with the tools and understandings constructed by my relationships with people, places and things. Social constructionists question the existence of any "self or
IN THE MIDDLE 28 reality that is distinct or separate from all the relationships, conversations, and experiences that have preceded the present moment. A constructionist viewpoint understands all that we are, have been or will be as an integrated, interconnected whole of time, place and relationships. After being introduced to social construction, my awareness of ministry began to shift. I began to observe and document the congregation I served for seven years as a way of understanding and appreciating change sourced in relationships. I tried to move my choices of behaviors away from those of an expert who observes and documents the other, that is the leadership choices of a positivist (the term positivist will be defined in following chapters), and toward behaviors based in a more relational understanding of my choices and professional responsibilities. The ways in which I was successful, or not, guided me to a deep appreciation of the unique possibilities of being in the middle, and of the potential of an appreciative leadership style. I stood in the middle of change, in the middle of relationships, in the middle of my own learning and understanding until I and my congregants moved into a new place of shared ministry. The process in which minister and congregation and minister and community leaders engaged revealed our strengths and weaknesses as we sought to dialogue, prioritize relationships, and gain an understanding of a We as contrasted to a collective of I s. I, along with all the other I s, had to reflect on my agenda versus our relationships. This reflection motivated quantum leaps in my spiritual maturation. The institutional development and spiritual maturity of the religious communities I served were affected in direct proportion to my appreciation of the impact of our relationships on their development. Originally, I chose a very positivist behavior, intending to combine a process of learning, observing, testing and documenting to arrive at a conclusion that would have wide applicability.
IN THE MIDDLE 29 I decided. I chose. I wanted to make constructionist dialogue relevant, understandable, and available to any community experiencing change, not only to congregations. As a minister, I wanted to share social construction and its relational framework with other ministers and congregations. By understanding and practicing relational dialogues and by being relationally responsible, I believed Unitarian Universalist congregations could more effectively model what it is we say we value. I believed an appreciative, relational practice could inspire UU congregations to fulfill our vision to be engaged, effective, principled agents of social change. All the I s seem so apparent now as I write them. They are my reminders of how transformations, middles, begin. In The Middle opens a conversation about applying social construction theory, through the use of appreciative inquiry tools, dialogue, and relational responsibility, to imagine a spiritual practice of appreciation. For it was my experience with two congregations, both of whom were managing their middles, that applying an appreciative process enhanced the maturation of spirituality and expanded the honesty and clarity of those congregations. Beginning with the UU Society of Bangor and moving on to the UU Fellowship of Wilmington, I improved my ability to be a relational, appreciative presence. The differences in my abilities, the differences in choices, outcomes, and conversations are notable in each community s ability to remain present in the tensions created by difference and to appreciate their unique identities and ministries. In both congregations we acknowledged appreciation as a first and important step towards transformation. For each congregation and in each shared ministry, appreciation was the beginning of a practice that led to something new. Somewhere in between where we have been and where we are going, there is an opportunity for a new realization or creation. In the relationship between what is and what can
IN THE MIDDLE 30 be lies our middle. The middle is fertile territory where anything can be imagined or discovered. When two or more people engage in a conversation in which they intentionally leave space between their differing understandings and beliefs and intentionally appreciate and respect the other, something new can emerge, something neither individual could have discovered on his or her own. Both come away changed by the dialogue. My intention to remain in the middle for as long as was necessary transformed my understanding of religious community and ministry. The dialogues between me, the minister, and the congregations I served allowed us each to come through the middle, moving from what we had believed into a new understanding of our reality and the intention to move towards new place. My hope is that people of faith will practice an appreciative approach to mission and shared ministry that encourages deepening faith through dialogues; that opens richer relationships between members of congregations and between diverse communities of faith.
IN THE MIDDLE 31 Chapter 1 A Monological Introduction to Language and Meaning Constructed Through Dialogical Communication In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. All things come into being through him and without him not one thing came into being...and the word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father's only son. (John 1: 1-3, 14-15; Harper Collins Study Bible, New Revised Standard Version) This verse, quoted from a Christian Bible, can be understood as words, quoted from a book, a collection of printed symbols that represent a literal story, history, reality and truth. There s another way of understanding the words in this verse as a particular language practice, one that sources its meaning in the relationships of the writers, their history, and context, to those reading. Whether the reader believes the Bible as an historical document or a sacred, divinely inspired text will affect the meaning the reader derives from the words of this well-known verse. Moreover, the relationship that readers have with one another, with religion, and/or with the Bible will shift the language they use to communicate the intents of or response to the Bible. The distinction between two understandings of language, how and what it communicates, and the associated implications are central to this paper s examination of two approaches to ministry. How we understand language can reflect an individualist (or positivist) stance or a relational (or social constructionist) stance. Do we extract meaning from what we read, that is from the printed story; from our beliefs about it; or from our relationship with the story and with others who read and write using the same language? Chapter 1 provides an overview of the development over the last few centuries in western understanding of how language works and
IN THE MIDDLE 32 how we make meaning, addressing the implications of this shift for the two approaches to ministry that are the subject of this dissertation. Years ago, shortly after being ordained, I welcomed old friends for a visit. Kathy, Sarah and Suzanne and I had known each other since sixth grade. We have shared grade school, puberty, first loves, college adventures, marriages, birthing babies, divorces, deaths and all that we have gone through in the last 40-plus years. One day while we were on a walk together, Kathy was expressing strong feelings about a family situation when she started to use a fourletter word. Suddenly she stopped, mid-word, looked at me and said, I'm sorry! Then she substituted another word. I looked at her in disbelief! Kathy! You are apologizing to me for swearing? Since when? She responded, Since you put that Rev. in front of your name. I don't know, I guess I feel... well, God, Elaine! I'm Catholic! I can t swear in front of you now! Kathy s relationship with me changed upon my ordination when her perception of me as friend and peer shifted. The shift was grounded in her relationship with her community of faith, Catholicism, which communicates a particular truth about ordination. When her perception of my identity changed, our relationship changed and so did the language she was comfortable using. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. I started thinking about the power that words wield. I began noticing my own choice of words and the results of my choices. A journey began, as I moved away from using spoken words as a means of sending and receiving communication, that is monologic communication, and toward choices of language that communicated the opportunity and discovery that relationships inspire, or dialogic communication. On this journey, I have joined with others who are engaged in a making paradigm shift.